The Falklands - Who should own these godforsaken islands?

I think that is the point of these settlements?

And why I am a object to further settlement creation.

 

The Irish nation is not whole.

 

500+ posts and this was a fun one.

 

In other words you accept existing settlements, but not FURTHER settlements.

 

It has been scattered to the four winds, but begins to slowly assimilate itself into others.

You refer to those left inside the six counties I know. And that is wrong. The border should be redrawn. We need a second boundary commission.

 

No I do not I simply accept the reality that it will not be politically feasible for the Israeli government to remove those settlers.

It does not mean I think it is right, only that I believe it will be.

I expect better of the British than I do of the Israelis which says something awful about the Israeli government. My expectations of the brits aren't particularly high...

 

Skipping over the 50+ pages, I think the islands should be an independent country, or territory of Argentina. It should be as the natives wish.

 

But they want to retain the status quo they don't want full independence they like being a BOT they feel it protects them from the argies.Who they really, really dislike ever since the invasion. They are the only britons who actually like Thatcher, not respect, not admire like.

 

The Falkland Islanders belong in their homeland of Britain, not in possession of stolen territory.

 

It is not stolen it is inherited, it is there home as much as unionists are entitled to the land that they own or Americans the land that they do.

 

When property is stolen it remains stolen despite the passage of time. There is no statute of limitations that legitimizes the theft of land by one people from another people.

 

Correct.... and furthermore, logically, it is within Britain where their rights to self-determination apply.

 

Of course there is, by that reckoning no one would ever own the land they stood on. It has all been fought over, it has been colonised and recolonised and we can't change that we can only move on and try to prevent further attempts at colonialisation.

 

If you are correct, then the Palestinians should just move on and let bygones be bygones with the Israeli settlers.

 

Those who were forced from their homes should not have to.

At some stage I fear they will have no alternative...

That does not make the initial crime less terrible.

It is a form of ethnic cleansing. And the worst part is they us past, more egregious, crimes committed against the Jewish people to cloak their crime.

 

Absurd. On this basis the USA should cease to exist. And Argentina too. Stolen property ruled by the descendants of the thieves. Why do we see these absurd statements that are of zero value as a basis to administer modern day territorial issues.

Its absurd. There is a good reason for the expression that possession is nine tenths of the law.

 

You are not pro Palestnian? You believe in ancient Israeli claims over Judea and Samaria? Of course. Makes sense.

 

Maybe its you zulu. Ever thought of that explanation? If you never even consider you can be wrong then there's little point in coming here. Your concept of self determination is completely wrong. Analogies have been made and you have ignored them. Another one. Russian nationalists belive Alaska is russian territory and was only leased to the USA. If Russia makes a claim on Alaska your position is that the views of the Alsaskans who live there are irrelevant right? I mean there's plenty of history about Russians being ethnically cleansed after the "purchase" by the USA. This claim is not currently made by the Russian government, but it is made by some politicians and it is easy foreseeable that the Russian position should change. Alaska is a long way from the rest of the USA. It is very close to Russia. Should the USA be obligated to negotiate?

You won't answer.

But you refuse to answer. You state a principle but you refuse to discuss how that principle might apply outside one example. It's because you can't. Because your position is quite clearly bollocks.

And what is in the interests of 65 million people is in a democracy decided by 65 million people. Right now they, and their elected representatives, choose to support the Falkland islanders. Your contempt for democracy and the will of people is clear. You are indifferent to what people actually want. This sets you in a very lonely camp. Most leftists don't argue that the 65 million have any sort of say. They argue based on territory and history. Still, you share with them an absolute contempt for the will of people to govern the places where they were born and grew up, and where their grandparents were born and grew up; this is a clear indication of the Left's and your argument's contempt for ordinary people.

 

Tell that to the American Indians.

Meanwhile you will be arranging for the return of Hawaii tomorrow and Alaska the day after.

 

Where will you be returning to after 4 generations or so, Albert? (assuming they allow it)

 

You miss the point. They are Falklanders and claim the right to have their islands ruled by Britain and being under the protection of Britain. It is their right of self determination as Falklanders that is key here. The Falklands is the place where they and their ancestors were born and grew up. They are Falklanders and are the only people who have any right to determine how the Falklands is ruled. That is the key point. The principle is that a territory - the Falklands - should be governed by the people who live in that territory, provided that they are not recent transplants (like some Israelli settlers in the West Bank). If they choose to be ruled by Swaziland and Swaziland consents then they should be allowed to do as they pelase, whatever you think. You put your vote in to reject their views, with the 65 million others. If you win the Falklanders will have to find another solution. But this is not the state of public opinion in Britain. If it is, then I concede that the Falklanders have no prospect of choosing to live under a Constitution as a Crown territory. But it isn't. Deal with that principle if you can. Why is this not the way international affairs should be conducted?

Time is an important legal component of common law. Time cements property rights. Time cements the rights of self determination. This is a common sense view that is tested by looking at how it would work and does work in a number of scenarios, both hypothetical and real. In the USA people have property rights and the right of self determination despite the fact that their land was stolen and that their ancestral homelands are thousands of miles away. British people own property even though all property was originally stolen by the Normans. Even the people they stole it from stole it from the Welsh. All property IS theft. That is not the basis for the world to determine property rights or territorial rights.

Alaskans have the right to determine that they are Americans notwithstanding any Russian claim and despite the fact that they are nearer to Russia and Canada. Citizens of French overseas territories are citizens of France and no country has any right to covet their land. Bermudans determine they are British. The list goes on and on. Why don't you deal with these clearly parallel analogies?

You refuse to be drawn to the ultimate conclusion forced by your principles that all these territories would be in play and "up for negotiation" if your principles of self determination were accepted. The populations of these countries should not have a say and should accept foreign rule or repatriation if that is what is negotiated. What is negotiated is of course determined by power. So you leave the populations of these territories subject to one rule: who has the power? Don't you see that the whole point of international law and the principles we are discussing is to determine global affairs based on things other than raw power? We are trying to moderate power with justice and fairness. We are trying to create a post colonial world based on things other than power. Such as the wishes of people. Power was the colonial way. And due to the inability of the world to establish any clear principle here based on the rights of people to rule where they live (rights of self determination), it will be British military power that has to be used to protect the Falklanders. Because of principles like the ones you forward here, which are tyrannical and unacceptable to civilized people.

You run away from this argument, dodge it over and over and over again. The fact that you cannot see this common sense defintion of self determination nor are you prepared to argue how your principles would work in other real cases of territorial sovereignty distant from the Motherland, underlines the complete bankriptcy of your case. It is one of the weakest arguments I have ever heard, especially when you admit that in 1982 you supported the Falklands War and see no incosistency here. The twisted logic is jawdroppingly amazing!

 

The problem with your analysis is that the First People of what became the United States of America are by and large dead. They left a few descendants who mostly intermarried with White people. Thus, there is no "taker in lieu" to whom the property would revert.

 

I was pro-israeli until I saw they didn't want peace...that is until the window of opportunity for peace had closed.

I was pro-palestinian until I saw they didn't want peace. The palestinians don't want peace or a state of their own. They want to kill jews.


The palestinians are arabs. Arabs are Muslims. A failed civilization.

 

A little cottage overlooking the Pearl River.

 

Could there be a more English name than Albert?